Patient Prosthesis Mismatch and Strategies to Prevent It During by mikesanye


									                                                                                                            Hellenic J Cardiol 2010; 52: 41-51

Review Article
                           Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch and Strategies to
                           Prevent It During Aortic Valve Replacement
                           Efstratios apostolakis1, Nikolaos G. Baikoussis1, Nikolaos a. papakoNstaNtiNou1,
                           JohN GoudEvENos2
                             Cardiothoracic Surgery Department, Patras University School of Medicine, University Hospital of Patras, Rion
                           Patras, 2Department of Cardiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece

Key words: Aortic                   ortic valve replacement (AVR) is                   observed phenomenon without relevant
valve stenosis, aortic              the well established treatment for                 clinical implications,10-12 many others have
valve replacement,
                                    patients with severe aortic valvu-                 argued that it occurs frequently and has
mismatch, stentless        lar stenosis (AVS). It decreases (or elimi-                 important clinical consequences.8,13-16 We
bioprosthesis.             nates) the pressure gradient between the                    reviewed the international bibliography
                           left ventricle and ascending aorta and con-                 and in this report we focus on the aetiol-
                           sequently leads to a gradual regress of left                ogy, pathophysiology and prevention of
                           ventricular (LV) hypertrophy. 1,2 LV hy-                    PPM.
                           pertrophy caused by severe aortic valve
                           stenosis is associated with a high risk of
                                                                                       Aetiology of PPM
                           sudden death, congestive heart failure,
                           and stroke.1 On the other hand, incom-                      The phenomenon of PPM is mainly attrib-
                           plete regression of LV hypertrophy after                    uted to two main reasons. First, patients
                           AVR has been shown to significantly re-                     with aortic valve disease frequently exhib-
Manuscript received:       duce 10-year survival.2-4 The concept of                    it annulus calcification and fibrosis as well
August 26, 2010;           prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) was                       as LV hypertrophy, and these pathological
November 25, 2010.
                           first introduced by Rahimtoola in 1978                      processes can reduce the size of the aor-
                           as the situation in which “the effective                    tic annulus.1,3 In these situations a small
                           prosthetic valve area, after insertion into                 prosthesis—in relation to the patient’s
Address:                   the patient, is less than that of a normal                  body surface area (BSA)—should be im-
Nikolaos G. Baikoussis
                           human valve”. 5 In other words, PPM is                      plantated.8 Second, because the stented
Kolokotroni 4, Messatida   deemed to occur when the effective orifice                  prosthesis is inserted within the aorta and
26500 Patras, Greece       area of the implanted prosthetic valve is                   has its own annulus, the effective orifice
e-mail:   too small in relation to the patient’s body                 area (EOA) after implantation is neces-
                           size, despite normal prosthesis function,                   sarily smaller than that of a normal native
                           resulting in an abnormally high postoper-                   valve.1,2 In fact, it has been shown that the
                           ative pressure gradient.6-8 By this defini-                 EOA available for blood flow represents
                           tion, nearly all patients receiving a pros-                 only 40% to 70% of the total area occu-
                           thetic aortic valve will have some degree                   pied by the valve. 17 However, the stent-
                           of PPM, as the sewing ring, struts and                      less valves without a fixed annulus allevi-
                           leaflets of prostheses produce a relative                   ate this problem, and they generally pro-
                           obstruction to blood flow. 1,9 Although                     vide a larger valve EOA in relation to the
                           some authors claim that PPM is a rarely                     patient’s BSA, as compared with stented

                                                                                                      (Hellenic Journal of Cardiology) HJC • 41
E. Apostolakis et al

bioprostheses. 18-21 The EOA is a physiological pa-        much higher gradients.35-37 Factors that may predict
rameter that represents the minimal cross-sectional        PPM preoperatively are as follows: larger BSA, high
area of the trans-prosthetic blood flow jet, and is eas-   BMI, older age, smaller prosthesis size, and valvular
ily measured by Doppler echocardiography. The only         stenosis as the predominant lesion before the oper-
parameter that has been validated to identify PPM is       ation.38-40 It is observed that PPM occurs more fre-
the ‘indexed’ EOA, that is, the EOA of the prosthesis      quently in patients with stenotic native valves and in
divided by the patient’s BSA (indexed EOA = EOA/           older patients. This is consistent with the overall con-
BSA).7,22-24 Reference values for EOA data exist for       cept, because patients with stenotic native valves gen-
each type and size of prosthesis, and they should ide-     erally have a smaller valvular annulus than those with
ally be derived from in vivo rather than in vitro val-     regurgitant valves,41 while calcific aortic stenosis is by
ues.8,14                                                   far the most prevalent lesion in older patients under-
     Internal geometric area (IGA) is another ana-         going AVR.8
tomical parameter calculated from the static mea-
surement of the internal diameter of the prosthe-
                                                           Pathophysiologic consequences of PPM
sis. Unfortunately, IGA measurement varies from
one type of prosthesis to the other, while the ratio       It has been shown that PPM has a significant im-
between the EOA and the geometric area also var-           pact on important clinical outcomes, such as free-
ies widely from one type and/or size of prosthesis         dom from heart failure, LV mass regression and late
to another.10,14,25 Notably, although these measure-       survival, and that this impact is highly modulated by
ments are reproducible without significant variabil-       the functional status of the LV before surgery.8,13,42,43
ity, they have consistently been shown to be unre-         The temptation to conclude that PPM is an impor-
lated to either postoperative gradients 26 or clini-       tant consideration only in patients with impaired
cal outcomes.10,12,27-29 In fact, Koch et al29 reported    LV function and can almost be dismissed as irrel-
identical values for indexed IGA in patients with          evant in patients with normal function should, how-
stented pericardial valves and patients with homo-         ever, be avoided. 6 The impact of PPM on clinical
grafts, whereas peak and mean pressure gradients           outcomes might well be at least as important as that
were twice as high in the former as in the latter. In      of LV function.6,44 It has been reported that a small
addition, they found no relation between the indexed       decrease in indexed EOA may correspond to a large
IGA and the clinical outcome of functional recovery        increase in transvalvular pressure gradient,5,7,8,18,38 to
after surgery.                                             less regression of LV hypertrophy, and to decreased
     Generally, haemodynamic compromise occurs             survival after AVR.42,43,45 Indeed, the extent of post-
when the indexed EOA of the prosthetic valve is cal-       operative LV mass regression has been shown to be
culated to be less than 75% of the native EOA, lead-       highly dependent on the type and size of prosthe-
ing to high postoperative transvalvular gradients and      ses used for valve replacement, as well as on their
reduced regression of left ventricular hypertrophy.8       haemodynamic performance.43,46,47 According to Pi-
According to the commonly used definition, valve           barot et al,40 in patients with PPM and an indexed
PPM is characterized as severe for indexed EOA ≤0.6        EOA ≤0.85 cm2/m2 the trans-prosthetic gradient was
cm2/m2, moderate for values 0.6-0.85 cm2/m2, and mild      found to be 22 ± 8 mm Hg, compared with 15 ± 6
for values >0.85 or 90 cm2/m2.13,18,30-33 Interestingly,   mm Hg in patients without PPM. In addition, car-
after AVR severe PPM occurs in 2-11% of patients,          diac index, which was similar in patients with and
moderate PPM in 20-70%,23 while after a mechanical         without mismatch up to three years after the opera-
implantation the incidence of significant mismatch         tion, decreased significantly thereafter only in pa-
may reach 60%.34                                           tients with mismatch (-0.54 ± 0.32 vs. -0.17 ± 0.49
                                                           L/min/m2, p=0.04). Although the deterioration in
                                                           valve EOA was similar in both groups, during fol-
Prediction of PPM
                                                           low up the mean gradient increased significantly (6
Intraoperatively, a measured small prosthesis size is      ± 6 vs. 1 ± 1 mmHg) only in patients with PPM. The
a widely recognized aetiological factor for postopera-     greatest postoperative deteriorations in cardiac index
tively observed PPM. Consequently, a small valve im-       and gradients were seen in the patients with the most
planted in the aortic position—generally prosthetic        severe PPM (i.e. with an indexed EOA ≤0.65 cm2/
valves sized <20-21 mm (for an adult)—tend to have         m2).8,40

42 • HJC (Hellenic Journal of Cardiology)
                                                                Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch: Alternative Operative Techniques

Influence on LV mass and function                         Influence on operative mortality
As has been reported in many studies, there is a          According to Blais et al,14 the impact of PPM was
strong interaction between PPM and depressed LV           found to increase exponentially in relation to the de-
function with regard to early mortality after AVR,        gree of severity, to the extent that even patients with
and such an interaction also exists in relation to late   normal LV function were found to have a signifi-
mortality, heart failure, and LV mass regression. 14      cant increase in early mortality when faced with se-
The interaction between LV dysfunction and PPM            vere PPM. PPM associated with increased operative
is consistent with the concept that the increased LV      mortality after AVR, particularly when combined
afterload caused by PPM is less well tolerated in a       with LV dysfunction,14 can be predicted at the time
poorly functioning ventricle than in a normal ventri-     of surgery and measures can be taken to avoid severe
cle. Avoidance of PPM in patients with preoperative       PPM.26 These measures include performing an aor-
LV systolic dysfunction is, therefore, an important       tic annulus enlargement procedure,52,53 or choosing
priority.7 Regarding the expected LV mass regression      a prosthesis with a larger effective orifice area—al-
after AVR, Barner et al48 demonstrated that it is bet-    though such techniques may increase the complexity
ter in patients with a prosthesis size >21 mm (21%)       of the procedure and the operative mortality.9
than in patients with a prosthesis size ≤21 mm (8%).           Multi-centre data collected from 701 consecu-
Nishimura et al 42 found that the mean wall thick-        tive patients undergoing AVR showed that 30-day
ness of the LV after AVR was directly related to the      mortality was higher in those with PPM than in those
pressure gradient across the aortic prosthetic valve.     without PPM (15.2% vs. 3.4%). Severe PPM was
In a recent study of 1103 patients with a bioprosthe-     associated with increased early mortality by a fac-
sis, Del Rizzo et al49 found a strong relation between    tor of five to six times.9,54,55 Blais et al,14 in a simi-
the indexed EOA and the extent of LV mass regres-         lar study, found that severe PPM was associated with
sion. At three years after the operation, the LV mass     an 11.4-fold and 12.6-fold increase in early and late
index had decreased by 23%, on average, in patients       mortality by univariate and multivariate analysis, re-
whose indexed EOA was >0.8 cm2/m2, as compared            spectively.14 In another study of patients after AVR
with 4.5% in patients with an indexed EOA <0.8 cm2/       using bioprostheses, Rao et al showed that early
m2. In contrast, no difference was noted between the      mortality was higher in those with an indexed EOA
patients with an indexed EOA between 0.8 and 1.0          ≤0.75 cm2/m2 (7.9% vs. 4.6%).56 Given that the LV is
cm2/m2 and those with an indexed EOA >1.0 cm2/m2          most vulnerable during the early postoperative peri-
(-24% vs. -22%).                                          od, it is intuitive to think that the increased afterload
                                                          posed by PPM may be particularly deleterious and
Influence on physical capacity                            may lead to excess mortality during this period.9 In
                                                          contrast to this, three other studies found no differ-
Postoperative improvement of the patient’s physical       ence in early mortality with PPM.10,30,57 Concerning
capacity is an important objective of AVR, because        the early 30-day morbidity (stroke, prolonged venti-
it directly influences the patient’s symptomatic sta-     lation, new renal failure, prolonged post-operative
tus, quality of life and rate of reemployment.2,50 In     stay, prolonged ICU stay or readmission) among pa-
addition, poor physical capacity is associated with a     tients with severe PPM after AVR, one study found
higher rate of late mortality after valve replacement.4   no association.9
De Carlo et al51 reported that, among patients with a
21 mm St. Jude mechanical valve, those with a BSA
>1.70 m2 had significantly lower exercise tolerance       Influence on late survival
than those with a BSA <1.70 m2. Furthermore, the
indexed valve EOA was an independent predictor            Previous short- and intermediate-term survival ana-
of exercise tolerance variables. On the other hand,       lyses have not consistently identified PPM as an in-
recent studies of patients with bioprosthetic aortic      dependent predictor of adverse outcomes.10,12 It is
valves showed that maximal exercise capacity, as esti-    therefore agreed that severe PPM increases early
mated by maximal workload, peak oxygen consump-           mortality, whereas its effect on late results is less
tion or anaerobic threshold, is similar when patients     clear. Clinically, severe PPM appears to be associated
with an indexed EOA ≤0.85 and >0.85 cm2/m2 are            with a higher incidence of late symptoms of heart fail-
compared.8,31                                             ure and less regression of LV hypertrophy, as deter-
                                                                                      (Hellenic Journal of Cardiology) HJC • 43
E. Apostolakis et al

mined by means of echocardiographic analysis.44,58,57        survival was 79 ± 1% at 5 years and 59 ± 2% at 10
Recently, an analysis from the Mayo Clinic identified        years. For patients with severe PPM, 5-year survival
severe PPM as an independent predictor of long term          (74 ± 8%) and 10-year survival (40 ± 10%) were sig-
mortality in patients with small aortic valve prosthe-       nificantly lower than for patients with non-significant
ses.13 However, it is important to note that only pa-        PPM (84 ± 1% and 61 ± 2%, respectively). There
tients with small valves (19 and 21 mm) were included        was also a trend towards lower survival in the severe
in that study. The study also excluded all short-term        PPM group when compared with the moderate PPM
deaths, which might have biased the results because          group (5-year survival: 81 ± 2%; 10-year survival: 57
short-term mortality is higher in patients with mod-         ± 3%) and in the moderate PPM group when com-
erate or severe PPM.13 However, several studies have         pared with the non-significant PPM group. Free-
shown that PPM was associated with an increased risk         dom from cardiovascular-related death was 92 ± 1%
of late mortality13,34,44,59,60 and the greatest mortality   at 5 years and 79 ± 2% at 10 years in the whole se-
risk was observed in patients with pre-existing LV sys-      ries, and was significantly lower in patients with se-
tolic dysfunction.14,44                                      vere PPM (5-year: 78 ± 7%; 10-year: 50 ± 11%)
     Although most, 11,14,59,61 but not all, 30 studies      than in those with moderate PPM (5-year: 90 ± 1%;
showed an impact of PPM on early mortality, the im-          10-year: 77 ± 3%) and in those with non-significant
portance of PPM for long-term survival is still un-          PPM (5-year: 93 ± 1%; 10-year: 81 ± 2%). Notably,
clear. Indeed, some authors 56,58,59 did identify mis-       severe PPM was more significant for patients >70
match as a significant risk factor for reduced long-         years-old, with BMI <30 kg/m2 and with LV ejection
term survival, but others did not support this find-         fraction (LVEF) <50%.60
ing.10-12,30 Among 469 adult patients who underwent
mechanical AVR for aortic stenosis and were fol-
                                                             Risk factors for operative and late mortality
lowed for a mean period of 7.9 years (interquartile
range 5.0-10.0 years) the degree of PPM was minimal          Several factors, including age, BMI, and preoper-
in 57%, moderate in 39%, and severe in only 4% of            ative LV functional status, may potentially influ-
patients.34 Seventy-five percent of severe PPM cases         ence the effect of PPM and the postoperative out-
occurred after implantation of smaller (i.e. 19 and          come.60,62 Some other risk factors could be advanced
21 mm) mechanical aortic valves. This severe mis-            age, elevated preoperative serum creatinine, elevat-
match occurred in 11% of all patients who received           ed mean pulmonary artery pressure, emergent in-
19 or 21 mm mechanical valves. Twelve-year surviv-           tervention and a long total bypass time. Severe PPM
al was 77% in patients with minimal mismatch, 63%            was not associated with stroke, prolonged ventila-
in those with moderate mismatch, and only 47% in             tion, new renal failure, prolonged postoperative stay,
those with severe mismatch.34 Another study of 533           prolonged ICU stay or readmission within 30 days,
patients who underwent AVR concerned the rela-               by univariate or multivariate analysis.9 One study60
tionship between the measured EOA within 10 days             has shown that PPM reduces survival in patients with
after operation and the follow up for a mean follow-         a BMI less than 30 kg/m2, but not in those who are
up time of 4.7 ± 2.2 years.45 According to that mea-         obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2). This finding is most likely
surement, moderate and severe PPM were observed              related to the fact that the use of the body surface
in 52% and 28% of the patients, respectively. The            area for normalisation of EOA may overestimate the
adjusted survival rates at 5 and 7 years were 81 ± 4%        prevalence and severity of PPM in obese patients.60
and 65 ± 9% for patients with severe prosthesis-pa-              According to some reports, severe PPM has a
tient mismatch, 83 ± 3% and 69 ± 6% for patients             significant negative effect on late survival in young-
with moderate mismatch, and 90 ± 4% and 87 ± 7%              er patients.60,62 This finding might be related to the
for patients with mild mismatch at discharge, respec-        fact that younger patients have higher cardiac out-
tively. Notably, the main decrease in survival was ob-       put requirements. They certainly have higher basal
served after 5 years. In another study involving 2576        metabolic rates and are generally more physically ac-
pts undergoing AVR who were followed for a mean              tive. Also, because they have a longer life expectan-
follow-up of 4.8 ± 3.4 years (median 4.3 years; maxi-        cy, younger patients are exposed to the risk of PPM
mum 14 years), the patients were divided in 3 groups         for a longer period of time.11 A possible explanation
according to PPM severity: non-significant (67%),            for the late effect of PPM on survival could be that
moderate (31%), and severe (2%). 60 The total late           patients with PPM undergoing long-term biopros-

44 • HJC (Hellenic Journal of Cardiology)
                                                              Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch: Alternative Operative Techniques

thetic valve degeneration or development of pannus       which can easily be applied in the operating room, ac-
have less EOA “reserve” and will therefore develop       cording to the literature:8
severe stenosis of their valves more rapidly than pa-
                                                         •	 Step 1. Calculate the patient’s BSA from weight and
tients without PPM undergoing the same processes.
                                                            height using the equation or the chart, proposed by
Also, older patients might be more likely to die from
other causes before this process has any impact. 11,60
                                                                  BSA = weight0.425 × height0.725 × 0.007184
Moderate-to-severe PPM (indexed EOA ≤0.85 cm2/
                                                         •	 Step 2. Ensure an indexed EOA >0.85, >0.80 or
m2) was also an independent predictor of late mor-
                                                            >0.75 cm2/m2, given the patient’s BSA as calculated
tality in patients with a preoperative LVEF <50%,
                                                            in step 1. The choice between 0.85, 0.80 and 0.75
but not in patients with preserved LV systolic func-
                                                            cm2/m2 is based on the minimal requirement for a
tion.60 Previous studies14 have shown increased early
                                                            given patient, with the knowledge that 0.85 cm2/m2
mortality in patients with a combination of moderate
                                                            or higher is the optimal value for better blood flow.8
PPM and LV dysfunction, as well as in all patients
                                                         •	 Step 3. Select the type and size of valve that has
with severe PPM, irrespective of LV function. Stud-
                                                            reference values for EOA greater than or equal
ies from other laboratories44,63 have also demonstrat-
                                                            to the minimal EOA value obtained in step 2.8
ed that the impact of moderate PPM on mid-term
mortality is more important in patients with pre-ex-     The reference values for EOA should therefore be
isting LV dysfunction than in those with preserved       readily available in the operating room to determine
LV function.                                             whether a particular prosthesis meets the require-
     According to one study,34 patient variables more    ments to avoid PPM. If not, the insertion of a larger
commonly associated with greater degrees of mis-         prosthesis size or that of a different type with a better
match included hypertension, increasing age, and         haemodynamic performance should be considered.8
higher BSA. Female sex was associated with more               However, strategies to avoid or reduce the sever-
severe mismatch; however, this association is prob-      ity of PPM should be individualised and should take
ably substantially confounded by the smaller pros-       into account multiple variables, such as age, BMI,
thetic valve sizes often used in female patients. No     lifestyle, LV function, LV hypertrophy, and the use
significant differences were found in other domains      of concomitant procedures.2,3,15 For example, if mod-
at baseline. Age greater than 65 years was an inde-      erate PPM is expected to occur in an elderly, seden-
pendent risk factor for long-term mortality. Because     tary patient with normal LV function, the benefits of
the population is ageing, the incidence of degenera-     doing an alternate procedure to avoid PPM might
tive aortic valve disease continues to grow, and the     be estimated to be outweighed by the inherent risks
potential adverse effect of PPM on long-term surviv-     or disadvantages of doing such a procedure. Preven-
al in the elderly population is of increasing concern.   tion of PPM becomes an important consideration
However, there was no interaction between age and        in a young, athletic individual, or if the patient has
PPM. Instead, PPM predicted long-term mortality          evidence of impaired LV function or severe LV hy-
regardless of patient age.34 Moderate or severe mis-     pertrophy. It has been emphasised that implanta-
match was most likely to occur in patients with larg-    tion of a small prosthesis does not necessarily result
er BSA, older age, and smaller prosthesis size. The      in PPM, and can be perfectly adequate in a patient
patients with substantial mismatch had significantly     with a small body size.7 In the case of an anticipated
worse long-term outcomes than those with minimal         PPM, alternate procedures may be included: a) aor-
mismatch.34                                              tic annulus enlargement14,52 to accommodate a larg-
                                                         er size of the same prosthesis model;8,60 b) insertion
                                                         of a prosthesis with a better haemodynamic perfor-
Therapeutic strategies
                                                         mance, such as a stentless bioprosthesis;8,60,65 c) im-
Prediction of mismatch at the time of surgery seems      plantation of a new generation stented or bileaflet
to be the optimal way to avoid PPM after AVR. Mod-       mechanical prosthesis implanted in a supra-annular
erate PPM should be avoided in young patients (less      position;60,66-68 d) homografts;8,14 or e) performance
than 65 years old), in patients who present with pre-    of a Ross operation.69 However, a considerable num-
operative LV dysfunction or severe LV hypertrophy,       ber of patients have also had mismatch after stent-
as well as in physically active individuals.7            less valve implantation, even after full root replace-
    To avoid PPM, an algorithm has been suggested        ment—although some of these cases are attributed

                                                                                    (Hellenic Journal of Cardiology) HJC • 45
E. Apostolakis et al

to technical reasons relating to the implantation pro-     PPM lower, in newer vs. older generations of prostheses,
cedure.70                                                  in mechanical vs. stented bioprosthetic valves, in supra-
    Despite over 30 years of investigations and clini-     annular vs. intra-annular stented bioprostheses, and in
cal applications, the ideal aortic valve substitute re-    stentless vs. stented bioprosthetic valves.37,52,86
mains elusive. Although conventional stented bio-
prostheses avoid the hazards of embolisation and
                                                           Stentless valves
anticoagulation, the rigid stent design increases the
likelihood of late structural failure and reoperation.71   Lower rates of severe PPM were observed after inser-
Furthermore, the obstructive nature of the stent leads     tion of stentless valves than after the use of stented
to a non-physiological flow pattern and residual pres-     biological valves.87 The advent of stentless biopros-
sure gradient,72 which—particularly in small valves—       theses represents a major advance, because these
may have an important bearing on postoperative left        prostheses generally have a much better haemody-
ventricular mass regression and function, with an ad-      namic performance than stented bioprostheses, both
verse clinical outcome.73,74 It has therefore been sug-    at rest and during exercise.19,65,88-91 Another option
gested by many studies that, in patients with a mea-       is the stentless aortic xenograft, which was first in-
sured aortic annulus diameter of 19 mm or smaller,         troduced into the clinical arena by Binet and associ-
prostheses with the largest actual orifice area pro-       ates91 in 1965. Despite excellent initial results, early
vided by the manufacturer,75,76 or other types of valve    enthusiasm waned because of premature structural
prostheses—i.e. stentless porcine,43,77-80 aortic homo-    deterioration as a consequence of the poor preserva-
graft,81 or pulmonary autograft42,82—should be con-        tion methods. This concept of using the aortic root
sidered.                                                   as a physiological stent for the valve prosthesis was
                                                           revived by David et al92 in 1987, when they initiated
                                                           a new trial using a stentless porcine aortic valve. In-
Aortic root replacement
                                                           deed, stentless bioprostheses provide a larger EOA in
In order to avoid PPM, patients could undergo an           relation to the patient’s BSA, resulting in a larger in-
aortic root enlargement procedure.83 The insertion         dexed EOA and a lower gradient.65
of a larger prosthesis may require enlargement of the           The superior haemodynamic performance of
aortic root,84 but the increased operative risk must be    stentless valves is due to the fact that, size for size,
taken under consideration.83 Some groups have suc-         their EOA is generally larger than that of stented
cessfully reduced the occurrence of PPM using aor-         valves. Moreover, for the stentless valves, a larg-
tic root enlargement, without any increase in opera-       er prosthesis can be inserted in a smaller annu-
tive risk.52 Preoperative calculation of the projected     lus.20,65,93,94 Several studies have demonstrated that
indexed EOA can likewise be used to avoid the un-          AVR with a stentless bioprosthesis is associated
warranted use of aggressive procedures such as aortic      with a greater decrease in transvalvular gradient and
root enlargement. The importance of these consider-        LV wall stress, as well as with more complete re-
ations becomes particularly evident in Asian patients,     gression of LV hypertrophy, compared with stented
who often have a small aortic root. This characteris-      valves.18,43,95 Stentless porcine valves were developed
tic is, however, often counterbalanced by the reduced      to help alleviate the problem of PPM by providing a
cardiac output requirement inherent to small body          larger EOA, thus improving flow through the valve
size.85 In this patient population, therefore, the im-     and consequently LV function. 96 Nonetheless, the
plantation of a small prosthesis with a good haemody-      EOA of stentless valves remains somewhat smaller
namic performance often provides a valve EOA that          than that of the corresponding native valve, because
is large enough to accommodate their cardiac output        they are usually implanted using techniques requir-
requirements.7                                             ing insertion of the prosthesis within the patient’s
                                                                However, the implantation of stentless valves is
Prosthesis with better haemodynamic performance
                                                           more complex than for stented valves, requiring lon-
It is known that, for any aortic annulus size, haemody-    ger cardiopulmonary bypass and ischaemic times.97
namic performance can vary widely from prosthesis to       A study was conducted in 95 patients who underwent
prosthesis. Indeed, haemodynamic performance is gen-       AVR with the Freestyle aortic root prosthesis. The
erally superior, and thus the prevalence and severity of   30-day mortality rate was 3 ± 2% (in-hospital mortal-

46 • HJC (Hellenic Journal of Cardiology)
                                                                   Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch: Alternative Operative Techniques

ity rate 2 ± 2%), with no death being directly valve-        Conclusions
related, while the 1- and 5-year actuarial estimates
                                                             PPM is a risk factor in patients who undergo AVR
of freedom from valve-related morbidity and mortal-
                                                             and is associated with poor haemodynamic and symp-
ity were 82 ± 4% and 79 ± 4%, respectively.98 This
                                                             tomatic status. In patients with PPM, mortality and
prospective analysis demonstrated that the Freestyle
                                                             cardiac events are frequent. Every effort should be
stentless valve can be implanted safely with excellent
                                                             made to avoid severe PPM in all patients, especially
mid-term clinical results. It has superb haemodynam-
                                                             in young patients who are physically active. However,
ics in terms of residual transvalvular pressure gradi-
                                                             PPM may be avoided by using newer generation pros-
ent, EOA, and regression of LV hypertrophy. It is a
                                                             theses, stentless valves or homografts, performing the
valuable alternative for those with a small aortic root,
                                                             Ross procedure, or carrying out aortic annulus en-
particularly in the elderly patient. The question of du-
rability compared with conventional stented biopros-
theses remains unanswered and requires longer fol-
low up.98 It was recommended that patients receive
aspirin, 80 to 325 mg/d, for the first 12 postopera-
tive weeks.1 This study shows that the use of stentless       1. Perez de Arenaza D, Lees B, Flather M, et al. Randomized
valves for AVR in patients with aortic stenosis is as-           comparison of stentless versus stented valves for aortic ste-
sociated with a similar degree of LV mass regression             nosis: effects on left ventricular mass. Circulation 2005; 112;
to a stented valve. Both valves provide regression of            2696-2702.
LV mass to within the normal range, but AVR with a            2. Treasure T, Holmes L. Measuring the quality of life. J Heart
stentless valve is associated with a significantly great-        Valve Dis. 1995; 4: 337-338.
                                                              3. Lund O, Kristensen LH, Baandrup U, et al. Myocardial struc-
er increase in EOA index and lower transvalvular ve-
                                                                 ture as a determinant of pre- and postoperative ventricular
locities than a stented valve.1
                                                                 function and long-term prognosis after valve replacement for
     The implantation of a stentless valve is more               aortic stenosis. Eur Heart J. 1998; 19: 1099-1108.
demanding than for a stented valve, and this is re-           4. Bortolotti U, Milano A, Mossuto E, Mazzaro E, Thiene G,
flected by longer cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-              Casarotto D. Early and late outcome after reoperation for
clamp times. Some reports have shown higher hos-                 prosthetic valve dysfuntion: analysis of 549 patients during a
pital mortality with stentless valves than with stent-           26-year period. J Heart Valve Dis. 1994; 3: 81-87.
ed valves,99,100 but long-term mortality may be lower         5. Rahimtoola SH. The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mis-
                                                                 match. Circulation. 1978; 58: 20-24.
with stentless valves.101 Both valves improved func-
                                                              6. Dumesnil JG, Pibarot P. Prosthesis-patient mismatch and
tional capacity, as measured by NHYA class and
                                                                 clinical outcomes: the evidence continues to accumulate. J
quality of life, but there was no difference between             Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006; 131: 952-955.
the 2 valve types. Similarly, 6-minute walking dis-           7. Pibarot P, Dumesnil J. The relevance of prosthesis-patient
tance was significantly improved in both groups, and             mismatch after aortic valve replacement. Nat Clin Pract Car-
there were no differences between valve types.1 In a             diovasc Med. 2008; 5: 764-765.
case-matched study, Casali et al102 showed a lower            8. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Hemodynamic and clinical impact
risk of cardiac death (77 ± 7% versus 90 ± 4%) and               of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position
                                                                 and its prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 36: 1131-1141.
freedom from valve-related death (78 ± 7% versus
                                                              9. Yap CH, Mohajeri M, Yii M. Prosthesis-patient mismatch
91 ± 4%) after 3 years in stentless versus stented pa-
                                                                 is associated with higher operative mortality following aortic
tients, respectively.                                            valve replacement. Heart Lung Circ. 2007; 16: 260-264.
                                                             10. Medalion B, Blackstone EH, Lytle BW, White J, Arnold JH,
                                                                 Cosgrove DM. Aortic valve replacement: is valve size impor-
                                                                 tant? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000; 119: 963-974.
Other alternatives also include aortic homografts103,104     11. Blackstone EH, Cosgrove DM, Jamieson WRE, et al. Pros-
or pulmonary autografts (Ross procedure),105-108 which           thesis size and long-term survival after aortic valve replace-
provide an indexed EOA similar to that of the normal             ment. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003; 126: 783-796.
                                                             12. Hanayama N, Christakis GT, Mallidi HR, et al. Patient pros-
native aortic valve. Although the aortic homograft,
                                                                 thesis mismatch is rare after aortic valve replacement: valve
first introduced by Ross109 in 1962, is an excellent al-         size may be irrelevant. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002; 73: 1822-1829.
ternative to the stented biologic prosthesis in terms of     13. Mohty D, Mohty-Echahidi D, Malouf JF, et al. Impact of
performance,110,111 its clinical use is severely curtailed       prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival in patients
by its limited availability.                                     with small St Jude Medical mechanical prostheses in the aor-

                                                                                          (Hellenic Journal of Cardiology) HJC • 47
E. Apostolakis et al

    tic position. Circulation. 2006; 113: 420-426.                          Ann Thorac Surg. 2002; 74: 2022-2025.
14. Blais C, Dumesnil JG, Baillot R, Simard S, Doyle D, Pibarot         29. Koch CG, Khandwala F, Estafanous FG, Loop FD, Black-
    P. Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term            stone EH. Impact of prosthesis-patient size on functional re-
    mortality after aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2003;            covery after aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2005; 111:
    108: 983-988.                                                           3221-3229.
15. Botzenhardt F, Eichinger WB, Bleiziffer S, et al. Hemody-           30. Howell NJ, Keogh BE, Barnet V, et al. Patient-prosthesis
    namic comparison of bioprostheses for complete supra-annu-              mismatch does not affect survival following aortic valve re-
    lar position in patients with small aortic annulus. J Am Coll           placement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006; 30: 10-14.
    Cardiol. 2005; 45: 2054-2060.                                       31. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Jobin J, Lemieux M, Honos G, Du-
16. Milano A.D, De Carlo M, Mecozzi G, et al. Clinical outcome in           rand LG. Usefulness of the indexed effective orifice area at
    patients with 19-mm and 21-mm St. Jude aortic prostheses: com-          rest in predicting an increase in gradient during maximum ex-
    parison at long-term follow-up. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002; 73: 37-43.       ercise in patients with a bioprosthesis in the aortic valve posi-
17. Carrel T, Zingg U, Jenni R, Aeschbacher B, Turina MI. Early             tion. Am J Cardiol. 1999; 83: 542-546.
    in vivo experience with the Hemodynamic Plus St. Jude Med-          32. Rahimtoola SH. Perspective on valvular heart disease: an up-
    ical heart valves in patients with narrowed aortic annulus.             date. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1989; 14: 1-23.
    Ann Thorac Surg. 1996; 61: 1418-1422.                               33. Bonow RO, Carabello B, de Leon AC, et al. Guidelines for
18. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Jobin J, Cartier P, Honos G, Du-                the management of patients with valvular heart disease: ex-
    rand LG. Hemodynamic and physical performance during                    ecutive summary. A report of the American College of Car-
    maximal exercise in patients with an aortic bioprosthetic               diology/American Heart Association Task Force on Prac-
    valve: comparison of stentless versus stented bioprostheses. J          tice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Patients with
    Am Coll Cardiol. 1999; 34: 1609-1617.                                   Valvular Heart Disease). Circulation. 1998; 98: 1949-1984.
19. Eriksson MJ, Rosfors S, Rådegran K, Brodin LA. Effects of           34. Kohsaka S, Mohan S, Virani S, et al. Prosthesis-patient mis-
    exercise on Doppler-derived pressure difference, valve resis-           match affects long-term survival after mechanical valve re-
    tance, and effective orifice area in different aortic valve pros-       placement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008; 135: 1076-1080.
    theses of similar size. Am J Cardiol. 1999; 83: 619-22, A10.        35. Bojar RM, Rastegar H, Payne DD, Mack CA, Schwartz SL.
20. Walther T, Falk V, Langebartels G, et al. Prospectively ran-            Clinical and hemodynamic performance of the 19-mm Car-
    domized evaluation of stentless versus conventional biologi-            penter-Edwards porcine bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg.
    cal aortic valves: impact on early regression of left ventricular       1993; 56: 1141-1147.
    hypertrophy. Circulation. 1999; 100(19 Suppl): II6-10.              36. Ihlen H, Mølstad P, Simonsen S, et al. Hemodynamic evalu-
21. Yun KL, Jamieson WR, Khonsari S, Burr LH, Munro AI,                     ation of the CarboMedics prosthetic heart valve in the aortic
    Sintek CF. Prosthesis-patient mismatch: hemodynamic com-                position: comparison of noninvasive and invasive techniques.
    parison of stented and stentless aortic valves. Semin Thorac            Am Heart J. 1992; 123: 151-159.
    Cardiovasc Surg. 1999; 11(4 Suppl 1): 98-102.                       37. Kallis P, Sneddon JF, Simpson IA, Fung A, Pepper JR, Smith
22. Dumesnil JG, Honos GN, Lemieux M, Beauchemin J. Vali-                   EE. Clinical and hemodynamic evaluation of the 19-mm
    dation and applications of indexed aortic prosthetic valve ar-          Carpentier-Edwards supraannular aortic valve. Ann Thorac
    eas calculated by Doppler echocardiography. J Am Coll Car-              Surg. 1992; 54: 1182-1185.
    diol. 1990; 16: 637-643.                                            38. Dumesnil JG, Yoganathan AP. Valve prosthesis hemody-
23. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthesis-patient mismatch: defini-            namics and the problem of high transprosthetic pressure gra-
    tion, clinical impact, and prevention. Heart. 2006; 92: 1022-           dients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1992; 6 Suppl 1: S34-37.
    1029.                                                               39. Pibarot P, Honos GN, Durand LG, Dumesnil JG. The effect
24. Bleiziffer S, Eichinger WB, Hettich I, et al. Prediction of             of prosthesis-patient mismatch on aortic bioprosthetic valve
    valve prosthesis-patient mismatch prior to aortic valve re-             hemodynamic performance and patient clinical status. Can J
    placement: which is the best method? Heart. 2007; 93: 615-              Cardiol. 1996; 12: 379-387.
    620.                                                                40. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Lemieux M, Cartier P, Métras J,
25. Muneretto C, Bisleri G, Negri A, Manfredi J. The concept                Durand LG. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on hemo-
    of patient-prosthesis mismatch. J Heart Valve Dis. 2004; 13             dynamic and symptomatic status, morbidity and mortality af-
    Suppl 1: S59-62.                                                        ter aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthetic heart valve.
26. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Cartier PC, Métras J, Lemieux MD.               J Heart Valve Dis. 1998; 7: 211-218.
    Patient-prosthesis mismatch can be predicted at the time of         41. Pantely G, Morton M, Rahimtoola SH. Effects of successful,
    operation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001; 71: S265-268.                         uncomplicated valve replacement on ventricular hypertro-
27. Knez I, Rienmüller R, Maier R, et al. Left ventricular archi-           phy, volume, and performance in aortic stenosis and in aortic
    tecture after valve replacement due to critical aortic stenosis:        incompetence. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1978; 75: 383-391.
    an approach to dis-/qualify the myth of valve prosthesis-pa-        42. Nishimura RA, Pieroni DR, Bierman FZ, et al. Second natu-
    tient mismatch? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2001; 19: 797-805.             ral history study of congenital heart defects. Aortic stenosis:
28. Freed DH, Tam JW, Moon MC, Harding GEJ, Ahmad E,                        echocardiography. Circulation. 1993; 87(2 Suppl): I66-72
    Pascoe EA. Nineteen-millimeter prosthetic aortic valves al-         43. Jin XY, Zhang ZM, Gibson DG, Yacoub MH, Pepper JR.
    low normalization of left ventricular mass in elderly women.            Effects of valve substitute on changes in left ventricular func-

48 • HJC (Hellenic Journal of Cardiology)
                                                                               Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch: Alternative Operative Techniques

      tion and hypertrophy after aortic valve replacement. Ann                tient mismatch on cardiac events and midterm mortality after
      Thorac Surg. 1996; 62: 683-690.                                         aortic valve replacement in patients with pure aortic stenosis.
44.   Ruel M, Al-Faleh H, Kulik A, Chan KL, Mesana TG, Bur-                   Circulation. 2006; 113: 570-576.
      wash IG. Prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve re-       59.   Walther T, Rastan A, Falk V, et al. Patient prosthesis mis-
      placement predominantly affects patients with preexisting               match affects short- and long-term outcomes after aortic
      left ventricular dysfunction: effect on survival, freedom from          valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006; 30: 15-19.
      heart failure, and left ventricular mass regression. J Thorac     60.   Mohty D, Dumesnil JG, Echahidi N, et al. Impact of prosthe-
      Cardiovasc Surg. 2006; 131: 1036-1044.                                  sis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve
45.   Florath I, Albert A, Rosendahl U, Ennker IC, Ennker J. Im-              replacement: influence of age, obesity, and left ventricular
      pact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch estimated by echo-            dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 53: 39-47.
      cardiographic-determined effective orifice area on long-term      61.   Bridges CR, O’Brien SM, Cleveland JC, et al. Association be-
      outcome after aortic valve replacement. Am Heart J. 2008;               tween indices of prosthesis internal orifice size and operative
      155: 1135-1142.                                                         mortality after isolated aortic valve replacement. J Thorac
46.   Sim EK, Orszulak TA, Schaff HV, Shub C. Influence of pros-              Cardiovasc Surg. 2007; 133: 1012-1021.
      thesis size on change in left ventricular mass following aortic   62.   Moon MR, Pasque MK, Munfakh NA, et al. Prosthesis-pa-
      valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1994; 8: 293-               tient mismatch after aortic valve replacement: impact of age
      297.                                                                    and body size on late survival. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006; 81:
47.   González-Juanatey JR, García-Acuña JM, Vega Fernandez                   481-488.
      M, et al. Influence of the size of aortic valve prostheses on     63.   Kulik A, Burwash IG, Kapila V, Mesana TG, Ruel M. Long-
      hemodynamics and change in left ventricular mass: implica-              term outcomes after valve replacement for low-gradient aor-
      tions for the surgical management of aortic stenosis. J Thorac          tic stenosis: Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch. Circula-
      Cardiovasc Surg. 1996; 112: 273-280.                                    tion. 2006; 114(1 Suppl): I553-558.
48.   Barner HB, Labovitz AJ, Fiore AC. Prosthetic valves for the       64.   Dubois E.F: Metabolism in Health and Disease. Philadel-
      small aortic root. J Card Surg. 1994; 9(2 Suppl): 154-157.              phia: Lea & Febiger, 1936.
49.   Del Rizzo DF, Abdoh A, Cartier P, Doty D, Westaby S. Fac-         65.   Dumesnil JG, LeBlanc MH, Cartier PC, et al. Hemodynamic
      tors affecting left ventricular mass regression after aortic            features of the freestyle aortic bioprosthesis compared with
      valve replacement with stentless valves. Semin Thorac Car-              stented bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998; 66: S130-133.
      diovasc Surg. 1999; 11(4 Suppl 1): 114-120.                       66.   Botzenhardt F, Eichinger WB, Guenzinger R, et al. Hemo-
50.   Foster C, Oldridge NB, Dion W, et al. Time course of recov-             dynamic performance and incidence of patient-prosthesis
      ery during cardiac rehabilitation. J Cardiopulmon Rehabil.              mismatch of the complete supraannular perimount magna
      1995; 15: 209-215.                                                      bioprosthesis in the aortic position. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.
51.   De Carlo M, Milano A, Musumeci G, et al. Cardiopulmonary                2005; 53: 226-230.
      exercise testing in patients with 21mm St. Jude Medical aortic    67.   Bach DS, Sakwa MP, Goldbach M, Petracek MR, Emery
      prosthesis. J Heart Valve Dis. 1999; 8: 522-529.                        RW, Mohr FW. Hemodynamics and early clinical perfor-
52.   Castro LJ, Arcidi JM, Fisher AL, Gaudiani VA. Routine en-               mance of the St. Jude Medical Regent mechanical aortic
      largement of the small aortic root: a preventive strategy to            valve. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002; 74: 2003-2009.
      minimize mismatch. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002; 74: 31-6; discus-       68.   Chambers J, Ely JL. Early postoperative echocardiograph-
      sion 36.                                                                ic hemodynamic performance of the On-X prosthetic heart
53.   Sommers KE, David TE. Aortic valve replacement with patch               valve: a multicenter study. J Heart Valve Dis. 1998; 7: 569-
      enlargement of the aortic annulus. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997;               573.
      63: 1608-1612.                                                    69.   Laforest I, Dumesnil JG, Briand M, Cartier PC, Pibarot P.
54.   Rankin JS, Hammill BG, Ferguson TB, et al. Determinants                 Hemodynamic performance at rest and during exercise af-
      of operative mortality in valvular heart surgery. J Thorac Car-         ter aortic valve replacement: comparison of pulmonary auto-
      diovasc Surg. 2006; 131: 547-557.                                       grafts versus aortic homografts. Circulation. 2002; 106: I57-
55.   Jamieson WR, Edwards FH, Schwartz M, Bero JW, Clark                     I62.
      RE, Grover FL. Risk stratification for cardiac valve replace-     70.   Albert A, Florath I, Rosendahl U, et al. Effect of surgeon on
      ment. National Cardiac Surgery Database. Database Com-                  transprosthetic gradients after aortic valve replacement with
      mittee of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Ann Thorac                  Freestyle stentless bioprosthesis and its consequences: a fol-
      Surg. 1999; 67: 943-951.                                                low-up study in 587 patients. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2007; 2: 40.
56.   Rao V, Jamieson WR, Ivanov J, Armstrong S, David TE.              71.   Jamieson WR. Modern cardiac valve devices: bioprosthe-
      Prosthesis-patient mismatch affects survival after aortic valve         ses and mechanical prostheses: state of the art. J Card Surg.
      replacement. Circulation. 2000; 102(19 Suppl 3): III5-9.                1993; 8: 89-98.
57.   Ruel M, Rubens FD, Masters RG, et al. Late incidence and          72.   Barratt-Boyes BG, Christie GW. What is the best biopros-
      predictors of persistent or recurrent heart failure in patients         thetic operation for the small aortic root?: allograft, auto-
      with aortic prosthetic valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004;          graft, porcine, pericardial? Stented or unstented? J Card
      127: 149-159.                                                           Surg. 1994; 9: 158-164.
58.   Tasca G, Mhagna Z, Perotti S, et al. Impact of prosthesis-pa-     73.   Jaffe WM, Coverdale HA, Roche AH, Whitlock RM, Neutze

                                                                                                      (Hellenic Journal of Cardiology) HJC • 49
E. Apostolakis et al

      JM, Barratt-Boyes BG. Rest and exercise hemodynamics of                 gression for stentless versus stented aortic valves. Ann Tho-
      20 to 23 mm allograft, Medtronic Intact (porcine), and St. Ju-          rac Surg. 2007; 84: 73-78.
      de Medical valves in the aortic position. J Thorac Cardiovasc    88.    Westaby S, Amarasena N, Long V, et al. Time-related hemo-
      Surg. 1990; 100: 167-174.                                               dynamic changes after aortic replacement with the freestyle
74.   Galloway AC, Colvin SB, Grossi EA, et al. Ten-year experi-              stentless xenograft. Ann Thorac Surg. 1995; 60: 1633-1638.
      ence with aortic valve replacement in 482 patients of 70 years   89.    Eriksson MJ, Brodin LA, Dellgren GN, Rådegran K. Rest
      of age or older: operative risk and long-term results. Ann              and exercise hemodynamics of an extended stentless aortic
      Thorac Surg. 1990; 49: 84-91.                                           bioprosthesis. J Heart Valve Dis. 1997; 6: 653-660.
75.   Hunziker PR, Spöndlin B, Hediger S, Burckhardt D, Brett          90.    Cartier PC, Dumesnil JG, Métras J, et al. Clinical and hemo-
      W, Buser P. Long-term follow-up and dobutamine stress                   dynamic performance of the Freestyle aortic root bioprosthe-
      echocardiography of 19-mm prosthetic heart valves. Echocar-             sis. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999; 67: 345-349.
      diography. 1998; 15: 617-624.                                    91.    Binet JP, Duran CG, Carpenter A, Langlois J. Heterologous
76.   Gelsomino S, Morocutti G, Da Col P, et al. Early in vivo he-            aortic valve transplantation. Lancet. 1965; 2: 1275.
      modynamic results after aortic valve replacement with the St     92.    David TE, Pollick C, Bos J. Aortic valve replacement with
      Jude Medical Regent mechanical heart valve in patients with             stentless porcine aortic bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc
      pure aortic stenosis. J Card Surg. 2003; 18: 125-132.                   Surg. 1990; 99: 113-118.
77.   Marcus RH, Heinrich RS, Bednarz J, et al. Assessment of          93.    Del Rizzo DF, Goldman BS, Joyner CP, Sever J, Fremes SE,
      small-diameter aortic mechanical prostheses: physiological              Christakis GT. Initial clinical experience with the Toronto
      relevance of the Doppler gradient, utility of flow augmenta-            stentless porcine valve. J Cardiac Surg. 1994; 9: 379-385.
      tion, and limitations of orifice area estimation. Circulation.   94.    Westaby S, Amarasena N, Ormerod O, Amarasena GA, Pil-
      1998; 98: 866-872.                                                      lai R. Aortic valve replacement with the Freestyle stentless
78.   Silberman S, Shaheen J, Fink D, et al. Comparison of exer-              xenograft. Ann Thorac Surg. 1995; 60(2 Suppl): S422-427.
      cise hemodynamics among nonstented aortic bioprostheses,         95.    Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Leblanc MH, Cartier P, Métras
      mechanical valves, and normal native aortic valves. J Card              J. Changes in left ventricular mass and function after aor-
      Surg. 1998; 13: 412-416.                                                tic valve replacement: a comparison between stentless and
79.   Morsy S, Zahran M, Usama M, Elkhashab K, Abdel-Aziz                     stented bioprosthetic valves. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 1999;
      I. Hemodynamic performance of stentless porcine biopros-                12: 981-987.
      thesis and mechanical bileaflet prosthesis using dobutamine      96.    Collinson J, Henein M, Flather M, Pepper JR, Gibson DG.
      stress echocardiography. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.                  Valve replacement for aortic stenosis in patients with poor
      2001; 13: 129-135.                                                      left ventricular function: comparison of early changes with
80.   Kitamura M, Satoh M, Hachida M, Endo M, Hashimoto A,                    stented and stentless valves. Circulation. 1999; 100: II1-5.
      Koyanagi H. Aortic valve replacement in small aortic annu-        97.   Kon ND, Westaby S, Amarasena N, Pillai R, Cordell AR.
      lus with or without annular enlargement. J Heart Valve Dis.             Comparison of implantation techniques using freestyle stent-
      1996; 5 Suppl 3: S289-293.                                              less porcine aortic valve. Ann Thorac Surg. 1995; 59: 857-862.
81.   Jaffe WM, Coverdale HA, Roche AH, Brandt PW, Ormiston             98.   Yun KL, Sintek CF, Fletcher AD, et al. Aortic valve replace-
      JA, Barratt-Boyes BG. Doppler echocardiography in the as-               ment with the Freestyle stentless bioprosthesis: five-year ex-
      sessment of the homograft aortic valve. Am J Cardiol. 1989;             perience. Circulation 1999; 100(19 Suppl): II17-23.
      63: 1466-1470.                                                    99.   Jin XY, Pepper JR. Do stentless valves make a difference?
82.   David TE, Feindel CM, Bos J, Sun Z, Scully HE, Rakowski                 Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2002; 22: 95-100.
      H. Aortic valve replacement with a stentless porcine aortic      100.   Kappetein AP, Braun J, Baur LH, et al. Outcome and follow-
      valve. A six-year experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1994;           up of aortic valve replacement with the freestyle stentless bio-
      108: 1030-1036.                                                         prosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001; 71: 601-607.
83.   Niinami H, Aomi S, Tomioka H, Nakano K, Koyanagi H. A            101.   Luciani GB, Casali G, Auriemma S, Santini F, Mazzucco A.
      comparison of the in vivo performance of the 19-mm St. Jude             Survival after stentless and stented xenograft aortic valve re-
      Hemodynamic Plus and 21-mm standard valve. Ann Thorac                   placement: a concurrent, controlled trial. Ann Thorac Surg.
      Surg. 2002; 74: 1120-1124.                                              2002; 74: 1443-1449.
84.   Nakano S, Matsuda H, Shimazaki Y, et al. An appraisal of         102.   Casali G, Auriemma S, Santini F, Mazzucco A, Luciani GB.
      patch enlargement of the small aortic annulus in 33 patients            Survival after stentless and stented xenograft aortic valve re-
      undergoing aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac                 placement: a concurrent, case-match trial. Ital Heart J. 2004;
      Surg. 1992; 6: 347-349.                                                 5: 282-289.
85.   Dumesnil JG, Pibarot P. Invited commentary. Ann Thorac           103.   Ross D. Homograft replacement of the aortic valve. Br J
      Surg. 2008; 85: 1308-1309.                                              Surg. 1967; 54: 842-843.
86.   Roedler S, Moritz A, Wutte M, Hoda R, Wolner E. The Car-         104.   O’Brien MF, McGiffin DC, Stafford EG, et al. Allograft aor-
      boMedics “top hat” supraannular prosthesis in the small aor-            tic valve replacement: long-term comparative clinical analysis
      tic root. J Card Surg. 1995; 10: 198-204.                               of the viable cryopreserved and antibiotic 4°C stored valves. J
87.   Kunadian B, Vijayalakshmi K, Thornley AR, et al. Meta-                  Card Surg. 1991; 6: 534-543.
      analysis of valve hemodynamics and left ventricular mass re-     105.   Ross DN. Replacement of aortic and mitral valves with a pul-

50 • HJC (Hellenic Journal of Cardiology)
                                                                           Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch: Alternative Operative Techniques

     monary autograft. Lancet. 1967; 2: 956-958.                          the aortic valve? N Engl J Med. 1994; 330: 59-60.
106. Elkins RC, Santangelo K, Stelzer P, Randolph JD, Knott-         109. Ross DN. Homograft replacement of the aortic valve. Lan-
     Craig CJ. Pulmonary autograft replacement of the aortic              cet. 1962; 2: 487.
     valve: an evolution of technique. J Card Surg. 1992; 7: 108-    110. Bodnar E, Wain WH, Martelli V, Ross DN. Long term per-
     116.                                                                 formance of 580 homograft and autograft valves used for aor-
107. Kouchoukos NT, Dávila-Román VG, Spray TL, Murphy SF,                 tic valve replacement. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1979; 27: 31-
     Perrillo JB. Replacement of the aortic root with a pulmonary         38.
     autograft in children and young adults with aortic-valve dis-   111. Kirklin JK, Smith D, Novick W, et al. Long-term function of
     ease. N Engl J Med. 1994; 330: 1-6.                                  cryopreserved aortic homografts. A ten-year study. J Thorac
108. Elkins RC. Pulmonary autograft—the optimal substitute for            Cardiovasc Surg. 1993; 106: 154-165.

                                                                                                 (Hellenic Journal of Cardiology) HJC • 51

To top